This document summarizes a presentation on solutions to family homelessness. It discusses various interventions like rapid re-housing, permanent supportive housing, and adding family assessments. Data is presented showing that rapid re-housing and permanent supportive housing have had success in keeping families stably housed. A new Family Housing Solutions project is described that uses a standardized family assessment and matches families to different levels of assistance. Preliminary results found most families were referred to rapid re-housing while a smaller number were referred to permanent supportive housing or temporary assistance. Lessons learned focused on coordination challenges and the need for more affordable housing.
Python Notes for mca i year students osmania university.docx
Solutions to Family Homelessness
1. Solutions to Family Homelessness
and the Role of Assessment
February 25, 2014
HOME Conference
2. AGENDA
I. Introduction and Overview: the Process of
Finding Solutions
II. Context and Some Guiding Ideas
III. Experiences With Rapid Re-Housing and
Permanent Supportive Housing
IV. Adding Assessment and Better Coordination to
the Mix: Family Housing Solutions (FHS)
V. Preliminary FHS Data, Lessons Learned So
Far, and Client Feedback
VI. Questions and Discussion
3. Context
What tools do we have to address family
homelessness?
Shelter
Transitional housing
Permanent supportive housing (PSH)
Rapid re-housing (RRH)
Diversion/prevention
Mainstream services (TANF, job
training, health, mental health, substance abuse
services, etc.)
Section 8 and other rental subsidy programs
Affordable housing
4. Context
Less than 1 in 10 families living in poverty
becomes homeless
Most families who do become homeless exit
shelter and never return
Those who do stay in shelter do worse the longer
they stay homeless, including:
Higher incidence of substance abuse
Higher incidence of mental health problems
Higher incidences of domestic violence and child-
protective services involvement
Lower school performance for children
6. Family
Assessment
• Homelessness
prevention, diversion,
mediation
• Connection to
mainstream services
Temporary
Housing
• Emergency shelter
• Transitional housing
•Connection to
mainstream services
Permanent
Housing
Emerging Model
• Permanent
supportive housing
•Rapid Re-Housing
• Long-term affordable
housing
7. Old Model (Graphic from Dennis Culhane)
Employment
assistance
Mental health/
substance abuse services
Family support
services
Housing
placement
Health
services
Shelter
9. Rapid Re-Housing
Components:
Assessing barriers to housing stability
Housing search
Supportive services (getting settled into
housing, understanding lease, connection to
mainstream resources, employment services)
Financial assistance (move-in costs, first-month’s
rent, security deposit, and rental subsidy)
10. Rapid Re-Housing
Characteristics of families served:
Very low income
First time or second time homeless
Some barriers to housing stability, such as poor
rental histories, evictions, criminal and credit
problem histories
May have disabilities, but not so severe as to
preclude employment
Some recent work history
11. Rapid Re-Housing
2013 Results
• 95% (52 of 55) of families that exited the
program had not returned to DC shelter as of
12/31/13
• Average length of case management for
exiters: 8.75 months
• 42% (23 of 55) of families who exited the
program increased their income before exiting
• Average family size: 3.4
• Average total cost per month: $2,100
12.
13. Permanent Supportive
Housing
Components:
Intensive case management (including case
planning, and coordination of services, connection to
mental health services, medical care, and substance
abuse recovery services)
Employment and education services, as well as
advocacy to maximize public benefits
Health and wellness services
Children’s services, including school
advocacy, mentoring, and developmental and social
assessment
Workshops and training opportunities
Financial assistance (ongoing rental subsidy)
14. Permanent Supportive
Housing
Characteristics of families served:
Very low income
Long histories of homelessness, multiple episodes
of homelessness
Multiple barriers to housing stability, including
little or no work history, significant documented
disabilities (health, mental health, substance
abuse), and greater levels of other trauma
(e.g., domestic violence, PTSD)
15. Permanent Supportive
Housing 2013 Results
• 96% (136 of 142) of families and single adults
remained stably housed in program or exited
to another positive permanent housing
destination
• 32% (46 of 142) of families and single adults
served increased income
• Average family size: 3.6
• Average total cost per month: $2,550
16.
17. Overview of FHS Project
$1 million 1-year grant from Freddie Mac
Foundation, supports:
Services to support 100 rapid re-housing slots, and 50
permanent supportive housing slots
Staffing – assessment specialists, case
managers, housing specialists, and employment
specialists
Technical assistance, training, and ongoing evaluation
delivered by OrgCode Consulting, Inc.
DC Department of Human Services providing 100
temporary housing subsidies for rapid re-
housing, and 50 permanent subsidies for
permanent supportive housing
18. Goals & Philosophy
of Grant
Permanently ending homelessness for 150
families in the homelessness assistance system
System change: piloting a uniform assessment
and prioritization system, initially assessing at
least 500 families
“Right assistance, at the right time, for the right
family”
Progressive engagement
Coordination among private and public partners
19. Why The SPDAT?
• Comprehensive
– Evaluates 20 components that contribute to housing stability
• Quantitative and objective
– Scored 0-4 in each component based on level of acuity
– Tallied scores fall within 3 ranges: one-time assistance, rapid
rehousing, and intensive supports
• Research based
– Developed by academics, researchers, and practitioners
– Used by over 10,000 individuals in 100 communities
– Individual SPDAT has gone through 3 revisions
• Proven
– Evaluation has shown that clients referred to programs through the
SPDAT assessment and case management have higher housing stability
in the long term than clients that do not use the SPDAT because they
were matched with appropriate level of services
20. Think of the F-SPDAT
in 5 Domains
Wellness Risks
Socialization
& Daily
Functions
Housing
History
Family Unit
24. Family Unit
Needs of Children Child/Family Court Size of Family Stability/Resiliency
Parental
Engagement
25. SPDAT Example
• Abuse/Trauma (second component of the first
domain, Wellness):
0 Parent does not report a past or present experience of abuse and/or trauma.
1 Parent has a history of abuse and/or traumatic events, but reports no serious
consequences on present functioning and/or parental ability, or indicates
resolution of past abuse through therapeutic means.
2 Parent has a history of abuse and/or traumatic events that are impacting
present functioning and/or parental ability. Parent is currently engaged in
therapeutic attempts at recovery, but does not consider self recovered.
3 Parent has a history of abuse and/or traumatic events that are severely
impacting present functioning and/or parental ability. Parent has not
attempted therapeutic recovery.
4 Parent is currently experiencing abuse or a traumatic event that is causing the
current period of homelessness. No attempt at therapeutic recovery has been
made.
27. F-SPDAT Process
Pre-Screening (1
day)
•The Assessment Specialist meets with shelter Case manager to conduct pre-screen and
begin collecting documents. Pre-screen helps determine who to fully assess first in
terms of priority.
Full Assessment
( 1-2 Weeks)
•The Assessment Specialist interviews clients at shelter, interviews shelter Case
Managers and collects all supporting documents.
•Assessment Specialist scores the SPDAT based on all the information gathered.
Offer (7 days
after scoring)
•The Assessment Specialist meets with the client and the shelter Case Manager to
discuss the findings and present the offer.
• The assistance offered is based on the SPDAT scores, possible service options include
(Permanent Supportive Housing, Rapid Re-Housing and One-time assistance)
28. Preliminary FHS Data
698 pre-screened
524 assessed
80 (15%) scoring for one-time assistance
404 (77%) scoring for rapid re-housing
40 (8%) scoring for permanent supportive housing
130 housed
So far, no families have become homeless
again
29. Preliminary FHS Data
DOMAIN Avg. PSH Score Avg. RRH Score Avg. OTA Score Out of a Possible
Wellness 3.29 2.00 0.46 5
Risks 2.35 0.97 0.03 4
Socialization & Daily functioning 3.53 2.65 1.33 4
History of Housing 1.0 0.93 0.76 1
Family Unit 3.82 1.95 1.08 5
TOTAL 14.00 8.50 3.90 19
30. Evaluation
Components
Basic demographic information; size of
households; source and amount of income;
history of housing and homelessness; physical
health, mental health, addictions; involvement
with emergency services; military service; history
of incarceration; employment and education
Multiple self-reported quality-of-life indicators
Perceptions of staff; interviews with clients
How families do in their housing
31. Lessons Learned
So Far
All the processes and timing within FHS are influenced by the
functioning of the current system (e.g., LRSP, STI)
Families moving out of shelter much slower than
anticipated
Some families reluctant to accept RRH, though most offers
made by FHS staff have been accepted
Hard to find affordable housing units – and lots of
competition for those units
Coordination and communication among partners needs to be
explicit and consistent
More training across providers needed for RRH and PSH to
ensure consistency of program outcomes
32. Clients’ Self-Reports
• Biggest improvements: physical health, mental health, and
connection with kids
• Least improvements: stress level (27% reported greater stress
now than when they were homeless), quality of food, and
quantity of food
• 86% reported having somewhat or a lot of choice in where
they lived
• Respondents had an average of $454 per month in income
and $540 in food stamps; the majority reported under the
table income (average $320), and 53% reported support from
family members
33. Clients’ Self-Reports
• ER decreased 67%, ambulance calls decreased 60%
• Rating of support received: 9.47 (out of 10)
• Respondents were optimistic, but not confident, about their
future and likelihood of homelessness again
• Readiness to move on scored at 5.5 out of 10, the importance
of moving on a 9 out of 10, and their confidence at 5.3 out of
10
• 75% said the type and frequency of supports were just
right, 67% percent said the duration of supports was too
short, and half said the intensity was too low while the other
said it was just right
34.
35. Questions and Discussion
• Possible expansion opportunities (single
adults? Other populations?)
• System change opportunities (changes to
prevention, shelter, and assessment system)
• Role of private funders
• Next steps
36. Contact Information
Jamey Burden
Director of Housing, Programs & Policy
Community of Hope, Inc.
Phone: 202.407.7766
E-mail: jburden@cohdc.org
www.communityofhopedc.org
Community of Hope is the winner of the 2012 Washington Post
Award for Excellence in Nonprofit Management.